D&D 5th Edition D&D Next Blog: Tone and Edition - Page 9




What's on your mind?

  1. #81
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    Bedrockgames's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    3,466

    Ignore Bedrockgames
    Quote Originally Posted by Yora View Post
    Edit: Ah now I get it! Then weird humans belong far more into generic 5th Edition worlds than standard fantasy races do.

    Well, I disagree anyway. The theme and style of stories is mostly independetnt from the parts that make the setting the story takes place in. Dark Sun is very S&S, but has all the standard races. Wheel of Time has more Hyborian-style races, but is still High Fantasy.
    It's what you make of it.
    I think what we are really talking about is what are the core and established D&D races and tropes (fantasy lit and D&D are two different things). I think if the aim is to make this recognizeably D&D, they really need to go with the core racesof human, elf, dwarf, gnome, halfling, half elf and (possibly) half orc. But they also need a section on other races and racial variants. They could put stuff like tieflings, eladrin and dragonborn in the core but these dont appear in the core phb of any other editions so they have a clear 4E races feel (and i do realize they were present in 3E products but there arealso many races present in 2E products tha never were mentioned in the core PHB. I think it is also a good idea for them to talk about settings in the race section and use examples like Darksun and Planescape to illustrate the possibilities. Also worth talking about human only campaign worlds. I general they need to do a better job IMO of emphasizing the uniqueness of each campaign setting and how players shouldn't assume every option in the PHB, DMG or various modules will be available in a given setting.
    http://www.rpgnow.com/product/131611/Sertorius

 

  • #82
    Registered User
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)

    Mattachine's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    793

    Ignore Mattachine
    I think this is a great idea. Not every option needs to be a module. Some options can simply be "tagged", so that the players will know the DM might include or exclude those options because of the particular campaign.

    Progress.
    Glamour is a rocky road!

  • #83
    Registered User
    Guide (Lvl 11)

    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,345

    Ignore Yora
    Quote Originally Posted by Iosue View Post
    I think this a great idea, an elegant and useful solution to the gnome problem.
    Lol, that was a really useful poll! ^^
    http://spriggans-den.com My site for the Ancient Lands setting and everything RPG related.

  • #84
    Radical idea.

    Don't have any player races, but have a system where you can apply levels to every monster in the book with guidelines how to balance different power levels. Humans, etc. would then just be "monsters" like all else. Hmm, maybe we shouldn't have a monster manual then but just a Race Compendium...
    Problem solves

    (I know that this will not happen as such a system is too complicated and a lot of people will rebel as they don't want anything in their games which is not Tolkien approved).

  • #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Bedrockgames View Post
    I general they need to do a better job IMO of emphasizing the uniqueness of each campaign setting and how players shouldn't assume every option in the PHB, DMG or various modules will be available in a given setting.
    Yes, a little less player-entitlement (assumption) in this edition would be a good thing.

    Not that I am advocating tyrannical DMs.

  • #86
    The Guvnor
    Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)

    Morrus's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    26,378
    Blog Entries
    4
    13th AgeSupermanCircvs MaximvsENniesPathfinderZEITGEISTDoctor Who

    Ignore Morrus
    My communities:

    I'm not seeing the problem, here. WotC isn't telling you how your campaign MUST be.

    It's presenting a default setting, and the races have X rarity in that setting. Other settings will no doubt have different rarities. You own campaign will have your own.

    Seriously, if folks are that upset about a default setting being included, do they feel that a default pantheon should be left out, also, because wotC is telling which gods you MUST use in your setting?

    It seems apparent to me that the rarities will be setting-dependent. That seems such a no-brainer, that I struggle to see how anyone could imagine it would be otherwise. And a default pantheon/races/etc. is a perfectly normal and common thing to find in a D&D core rulebook.

    I like it. And it makes it easy for a beginner DM to choose simple "packages" while leaving the experienced DM to tweak as he or she wishes. That's exactly how a game should be designed, in my view.

  • #87
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    Bedrockgames's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    3,466

    Ignore Bedrockgames
    Quote Originally Posted by Morrus View Post
    I'm not seeing the problem, here. WotC isn't telling you how your campaign MUST be.

    It's presenting a default setting, and the races have X rarity in that setting. Other settings will no doubt have different rarities. You own campaign will have your own.

    Seriously, if folks are that upset about a default setting being included, do they feel that a default pantheon should be left out, also, because wotC is telling which gods you MUST use in your setting?

    It seems apparent to me that the rarities will be setting-dependent. That seems such a no-brainer, that I struggle to see how anyone could imagine it would be otherwise. And a default pantheon/races/etc. is a perfectly normal and common thing to find in a D&D core rulebook.

    I like it. And it makes it easy for a beginner DM to choose simple "packages" while leaving the experienced DM to tweak as he or she wishes. That's exactly how a game should be designed, in my view.

    Actually to be completely honest I would like to see the pantheon left out and left up to the GM (with guidelines of course). This sort of approach worked well for me in 2E, where many of those details were left to the campaign setting. I found it easier to put my setting details on the core than in 3e (because it was built around more setting assumptions--not many but more).
    http://www.rpgnow.com/product/131611/Sertorius

  • #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Morrus View Post
    It's presenting a default setting, and the races have X rarity in that setting. Other settings will no doubt have different rarities. You own campaign will have your own.
    Then they should make a separate "The default setting for beginners" section for this information and not write it into the core rules part of the books.

  • #89
    The Guvnor
    Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)

    Morrus's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    26,378
    Blog Entries
    4
    13th AgeSupermanCircvs MaximvsENniesPathfinderZEITGEISTDoctor Who

    Ignore Morrus
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by Derren View Post
    Then they should make a separate "The default setting for beginners" section for this information and not write it into the core rules part of the books.
    I don't think we're at the point where we can quibble about possible layout issues for a game that has not even been written yet. I'm sure layout will become a priority for WotC in a year or so - right now they don't even know what the game is going to be called, let alone the positions of sidebars and chapter names.

  • #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Morrus View Post
    I'm not seeing the problem, here. WotC isn't telling you how your campaign MUST be.
    Of cource not, but it is easy enough to see people being against some races being presented as rare, but still in the world. I know when I see rare dragonborn, My first thought is "Well if I am the only one in this city, isn't that still rare"


    It seems apparent to me that the rarities will be setting-dependent. That seems such a no-brainer, that I struggle to see how anyone could imagine it would be otherwise.
    I am not sure that anything is a no-brainer anymore. I agree with the above statement of eladrin and tieflings in Darksun in 4e, when there was no need for it.


    I like it. And it makes it easy for a beginner DM to choose simple "packages" while leaving the experienced DM to tweak as he or she wishes. That's exactly how a game should be designed, in my view.
    I think the terms are the problem. I think that the C/U/R from collactable sets puts a thought in your mind. I think maybe they need to re write the way they communicate the idea if you are right.

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516 LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. The Writing Style and Tone of 5E
      By Mark CMG in forum D&D 5th Edition
      Replies: 11
      Last Post: Sunday, 15th January, 2012, 07:55 PM
    2. Tone Artists?
      By JQP in forum Miscellaneous Geek Talk & Media Lounge
      Replies: 1
      Last Post: Tuesday, 11th March, 2008, 03:00 PM
    3. SPELLS of 4th edition - Mearls blog
      By FabioMilitoPagliara in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 8
      Last Post: Friday, 16th November, 2007, 09:28 PM
    4. Age of Worms - Campaign tone?
      By The_Fan in forum General RPG Discussion
      Replies: 18
      Last Post: Saturday, 18th June, 2005, 11:39 PM
    5. What's the tone of your campaign?
      By eris404 in forum General RPG Discussion
      Replies: 60
      Last Post: Saturday, 8th May, 2004, 04:13 PM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •